Question for Elementary Economics

[Jason]

SH:

WHAT?????

Supply is not influenced by price, price is influenced by supply.

Where did you go to school? Excuse me, did you go to school?

Another example of your ignorance.

SH, If you were to get nothing for your cattle, how many would you keep producing? You need to think before you post.

SH:YOU DON'T KNOW THE VALUE OF THE CASH CATTLE UNTIL THEIR HIDE COMES OFF AND THEY ARE PRICED BEFORE THEIR HIDE COMES OFF.

Another example of your ignorance.


Keep posting Elementary Economics!

SH, If there is so much of a problem with the cash market, why is it used as a base for the formula pricing? You need to think before you post.

Explain this conumdrum Econ, supply of old cows is short so the price goes up. This draws more old cows to town increasing supply, of old cows, not young feeders.

Young feeders are in tight supply because more old cows went to town The price goes up. Ranchers keep more heifers because they can pay their bills with just the steers.

As those retained heifers start to produce they make more feeders making the supply more plentiful, then the price goes down. Instead of keeping more heifers to expand, the rancher sells his heifers and steers to pay his bills. While he does this his cowherd ages, but keeps producing at a steady pace. The age those cows get sold at depends on their reproductive ability to return more than they cost to keep. How many ranchers decide to cull a productive cow just because the price is $0.50/lb? I'll give you a hint, it's the number less than 1.

 

[Econ101]

SH:

WHAT?????


Supply is not influenced by price, price is influenced by supply.

Where did you go to school? Excuse me, did you go to school?

Another example of your ignorance.

SH, If you were to get nothing for your cattle, how many would you keep producing? You need to think before you post.

SH:YOU DON'T KNOW THE VALUE OF THE CASH CATTLE UNTIL THEIR HIDE COMES OFF AND THEY ARE PRICED BEFORE THEIR HIDE COMES OFF.

Another example of your ignorance.


Keep posting Elementary Economics!

SH, If there is so much of a problem with the cash market, why is it used as a base for the formula pricing? You need to think before you post.

Explain this conumdrum Econ, supply of old cows is short so the price goes up. This draws more old cows to town increasing supply, of old cows, not young feeders.

Young feeders are in tight supply because more old cows went to town The price goes up. Ranchers keep more heifers because they can pay their bills with just the steers.

As those retained heifers start to produce they make more feeders making the supply more plentiful, then the price goes down. Instead of keeping more heifers to expand, the rancher sells his heifers and steers to pay his bills. While he does this his cowherd ages, but keeps producing at a steady pace. The age those cows get sold at depends on their reproductive ability to return more than they cost to keep. How many ranchers decide to cull a productive cow just because the price is $0.50/lb? I'll give you a hint, it's the number less than 1.

Suppose humans caught some kind of virus that makes them puke everytime they eat beef. Reality sets in and everyone knows they can never eat beef again. People stop buying cattle. You now own a zoo. How long are you going to keep letting those cows reproduce? I'll give you a hint, you will run out of money on year 2.

Moral: Hypotheticals better not get too complicated to make a point.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

SH:

SH, If you were to get nothing for your cattle, how many would you keep producing? You need to think before you post.

SH:YOU DON'T KNOW THE VALUE OF THE CASH CATTLE UNTIL THEIR HIDE COMES OFF AND THEY ARE PRICED BEFORE THEIR HIDE COMES OFF.

Another example of your ignorance.


Keep posting Elementary Economics!

Explain this conumdrum Econ, supply of old cows is short so the price goes up. This draws more old cows to town increasing supply, of old cows, not young feeders.

Young feeders are in tight supply because more old cows went to town The price goes up. Ranchers keep more heifers because they can pay their bills with just the steers.

As those retained heifers start to produce they make more feeders making the supply more plentiful, then the price goes down. Instead of keeping more heifers to expand, the rancher sells his heifers and steers to pay his bills. While he does this his cowherd ages, but keeps producing at a steady pace. The age those cows get sold at depends on their reproductive ability to return more than they cost to keep. How many ranchers decide to cull a productive cow just because the price is $0.50/lb? I'll give you a hint, it's the number less than 1.

Suppose humans caught some kind of virus that makes them puke everytime they eat beef. Reality sets in and everyone knows they can never eat beef again. People stop buying cattle. You now own a zoo. How long are you going to keep letting those cows reproduce? I'll give you a hint, you will run out of money on year 2.

Moral: Hypotheticals better not get too complicated to make a point.

The only thing is Jasons is what happens and your is what you think from doing CRACK. Your grasping ECON.

 

[agman]

Agman, I learned about the cattle cycle in highschool. So what? Are you trying to say I don't know it exists? Stop jumping. The cattle cycle can be influenced and often is, by price. It is a longer term phenomena. That is exactly my point. The supply of cattle is relatively inelastic. I say relative because everything is relative. In this case the comparison is between prices and supply over time. I never said that Pickett's price manipulation was the cause of the cattle cycle. That was your jump. I said it influenced it. Can you honestly say that if prices were not depressed that there would not be more supply? Do prices affect supply or was Mike C. right?

Are you turning into SH? "Your ignorance of business is astonishing. Your opinions are derived from ignorance not fact." It looks like you two trade lines all the time. Can't you come up with something more original?

I did not say that you said the Pickett case caused the recent cattle cycle. What I said was that you have stated price manipulation is part of the cattle cycle. Have you forgotten your own posts?

You understanding of the cylcle is so shallow it is not even worth commenting on. Everytime you make a statement you dispaly for readers how little you know, not how much you know. What you don't know is much more relevant than what you claim to know. I will rephrase my question. If "marketings agreements" are synonymous with price manipulation then what caused the cattle cycle prior to marketing agreements or the level of packer concentratrion that exists today. If you even have to question whether Mike C was right then you are even less knowledgeable than you already appear. That would truly be a sad situation for any individual much less someone like yourself who professes to be an expert in supply/demand analysis.

Who was present, when and where were those closed door meetings in the Pickett case? Are you in denial of that scandalous statement you made? Is that why you have refused repeatedly to answer the question. If you cannot answer the question what does that make you?

Agman, I did not say that price manipulation was part of the cattle cycle. You are getting two things mixed up again. I said it influences the cattle cycle. When prices are depressed it reduces supply. As you know supply reductions only happen over longer periods of time. It is based partly on the biological reproduction cycle of cattle. You can't just have high prices and then have more supply. Cattle ranchers have to get mother cows, bulls, and allow them to breed and then allow those heifers to grow up and have more calves etc..... It is the nature of the cattle reproductive cycle that creates the lengthy time of supply responding to price. When prices are reduced because of price manipulation as shown to the jury in the Pickett case, the supply eventually shrinks. When that supply does shrink, it causes prices to go up. Then you get people like Tam saying that the U.S. can't supply enough cattle for the U.S.

I have never said that marketing agreements are synonamous to market manipulation. It can be. It doesn't necessarily mean causuality. You can have a gun in your closet and not be a criminal. If you take the gun out and shoot someone then you might be a criminal. They are not causative. Your actions are your actions. If packers are discriminating against the price setting cash market then there is evidence of market manipulation (call it whatever you want).

Discrimination based on real quality characteristics is not what I am talking about. For instance, if the formula pricing (or captive supply) includes differences per lb. for select vs. choice, you should see those same characteristics of differences in price per lb. in the cash market. If you do not, then there could be market manipulation. You forget, for market manipulation to make a difference, the cash price has to be some kind of price setter. For the formula cattle it is. There could be other kinds of discrimination that would be illegal under the PSA. If a packer discriminated against a set of cattle that had to do with factors other than the differences in the cattle themselves, as in Mike C.'s case, then that would be unlawful. If the actions against a person like Mike C. was intended to intimidate people like Mike C. then it creates damage to the market also in addition to the actions against a person like Mike C. .

As you can see, you can not just make the kind of blanket statements that you attribute to me, especially since I didn't make them. If you need clarification of what I am talking about, just post my comments and I will give you the clarification. I don't need you or any of the other packer backers going into the childish mode of calling names as you repeatedly lower yourself and do.

I have stated before numerous times that the marketing agreements themselves are not the manipulation. They are the tools of the manipulation. You keep trying to tie those together for some reason. Probably to make up an argument in your own head that you can win. It is probably better left in your own head than for you to keep trying that tactic here. You will only confuse yourself as you continually do. If things get too complicated for you, don't start calling names or saying how dumb, ignorant, or stupid someone else is or rant and rave. It only makes you look childish and proves you do not have a logical argument to back with.

This is about the third time I have had to explain this to you. If your reading comprehension and memory are so poor, I would say that you have NO advantage in having access to the Pickett transcripts while I do not.

I have made a scandolous statement about the either incompetence at GIPSA and hence the USDA or the corruption. I stand behind it. Results matter. Every cattle producer/agriculture producer in America gets paid (except those on the govt. programs) based on the fruits of his/her labor. The same should be expected from our regulatory agencies that are facilitating the frauds being perpetrated on the American farmer (rancher) through the cozy relationship that Tyson and other large agribusiness has on our government. In the case of Mike C. , for example, (I don't know all of the particulars completely) it was said that GIPSA settled his claim without his input and without calculating total damages. If this is true, then GIPSA is just minimizing the culpability of the packing industry and shielding them from damage awards. This would be a total fraud. GIPSA officials acting in this regard should be held personally liable for these damages with an efficient means of obtaining them. May be a little jail time would not be too much to ask for in the right circumstances. (I don't really know much about this case, I am just using it as an example). May be something like that would clear up that rat's nest of inefficiency and corruption in the USDA.

As far as the particulars of your last question, those answers are for a different forum. This government has the transparency of a lead wall. We need some sunlight.

Do you still say producers have a net benefit from imports? If you do, you might get a job at GIPSA as that is the kind of thinking they seem to like if you don't already work there.

Now you are trying to divert by claiming the word "influence" to cover your behind as to price manipulation and the cattle cycle. Shucks, weather influences the cattle cycle as does feed supply, the supply of beef and the price of beef. I suppose that with your imagination and ability to use the word "manipulate" that packers also influence feed grain prices. The key word is "influence"; your own word. You are just way too easy.

If price manipulation occurred the result would be a downward shift in the demand curve as opposed to a shift down the curve absent declining demand for beef. Can you tell me which periods posted an actual downward shift in the demand curve? Why ask, I know you do not know the answer?

If marketing agreements are the tools for manipulation in this cycle what was used before marketing agreements to manipulate price to influence the cattle cycle? How many times have I asked this question and get no answer from you. I know, you don't have an answer because your premise is wrong to begin with. Me confused... I believe you are the mosquito flying over the nudist colony that can't get your facts correct to make a decision.

CLARIFICATION...You made a scandalous statement regarding closed door meetings in the Pickett case. Your statement was specific to that case. Have you trapped yourself in two self made lies or is your memory slipping that badly?

Now you are trying to divert from what appears to be your blatant lie regarding the Pickett ruling to to saying the meetings were GIPSA, the USDA and their incompetence and or corruption. Your aforementioned diversionary comment "I have made a scandalous statement about the either incompetence at GIPSA and hence the USDA or the corruption. I stand behind it." You don't have any evidence of that claim either, just your imagination running loose again; like your phone is being tapped!

I won't ask you again to provide evidence of your closed door meetings in the Pickett case. I believe your aforementioned diversion from that question has made it clear to ALL readers what a real fraud you and your associated allegations are. As always, facts will eventually win out over fraud or false allegations and knowledge will eventually defeat intelligence.

Your unwillingness and inability to provide credible support to your endless stream of allegations unfortunately eroded the E away from Econ101 leaving you to be known as Con101. Sorry Bud, but you dug your own grave and buried yourself in it. Don't blame it on another packer, GIPSA or USDA conspiracy contrived behind closed doors.

 

[Econ101]

Explain this conumdrum Econ, supply of old cows is short so the price goes up. This draws more old cows to town increasing supply, of old cows, not young feeders.

Young feeders are in tight supply because more old cows went to town The price goes up. Ranchers keep more heifers because they can pay their bills with just the steers.

As those retained heifers start to produce they make more feeders making the supply more plentiful, then the price goes down. Instead of keeping more heifers to expand, the rancher sells his heifers and steers to pay his bills. While he does this his cowherd ages, but keeps producing at a steady pace. The age those cows get sold at depends on their reproductive ability to return more than they cost to keep. How many ranchers decide to cull a productive cow just because the price is $0.50/lb? I'll give you a hint, it's the number less than 1.

Suppose humans caught some kind of virus that makes them puke everytime they eat beef. Reality sets in and everyone knows they can never eat beef again. People stop buying cattle. You now own a zoo. How long are you going to keep letting those cows reproduce? I'll give you a hint, you will run out of money on year 2.

Moral: Hypotheticals better not get too complicated to make a point.

The only thing is Jasons is what happens and your is what you think from doing CRACK. Your grasping ECON.

BMR, a lot of things happen. Some people (an ever increasing share) do not even follow the cattle cycle as Jason explained it. I could go into his explanation and tweak it here or there to come up with the result I wanted. Even if on average it worked out that way (which is a plausable explanation of the cattle cycle), it is still no excuse for discrimnating for the same quality characteristics against the cash market. That will accentuate the cattle cycle. There is a reason it was enumerated in the prohibitions. The cattle cycle will continue with or without price manipulation. Price manipulation and a discrimination against the cash price swings the cattle market more than it would otherwise be swung, making higher highs, and lower lows. (Did I not say that before?). Go read my post on Chicken profits and follow the string. Tyson has reasons for swinging the markets this way. All of those reasons are self serving reasons that benefit it at the expense of producers. This is an old cycle that my great grandfather dealt with. It is like a swing, a little push at the right time will make it go higher. The natural rithym of the cattle cycle is no excuse for price manipulation found in the Pickett case.

In a lot of these instances, the tools of the fraud are inherent in the natural production cycles. They are natural phenomona that the the economists working for IBP/Tyson and the others look for to try to take advantage of. Sometimes they just come up by mistake. I will probably post an example of that later. I haven't thought of a real good way to post that on this forum because it requires a little mathematical program and a formula that is a little complicated along with data that can be complicated also.

While in college I dabbled a little with technical trading of stocks. I made a little money on those trades but realized that trends were industry specific, depended on monetary policy (inflation, interest rates, economic shocks, et.,.), and that my little nibbling in the market was really subserviant to forces I would never be able to control (market moves by major players in the stock and or management of the companies as well as trends in the biz). These formulas for calculating values can get pretty complex. This is not a forum for those type of discussions, especially when you have someone like SH or even Agman leading people to believe in things like the imports question I brought up. They are just confusing everyone who doesn't know better, which is probably thier function.

Go read my former posts on these subjects instead of taking the characterizations of Agman or SH as to what I said. They are constantly getting what I say mixed up and twisted around. That is one of the reasons why there really can be no substantive discussion on these issues on this forum. If they didn't underestand what I was saying, they could have asked instead of calling names as they are prone to do.

 

[Econ101]

I did not say that you said the Pickett case caused the recent cattle cycle. What I said was that you have stated price manipulation is part of the cattle cycle. Have you forgotten your own posts?

You understanding of the cylcle is so shallow it is not even worth commenting on. Everytime you make a statement you dispaly for readers how little you know, not how much you know. What you don't know is much more relevant than what you claim to know. I will rephrase my question. If "marketings agreements" are synonymous with price manipulation then what caused the cattle cycle prior to marketing agreements or the level of packer concentratrion that exists today. If you even have to question whether Mike C was right then you are even less knowledgeable than you already appear. That would truly be a sad situation for any individual much less someone like yourself who professes to be an expert in supply/demand analysis.

Who was present, when and where were those closed door meetings in the Pickett case? Are you in denial of that scandalous statement you made? Is that why you have refused repeatedly to answer the question. If you cannot answer the question what does that make you?

Agman, I did not say that price manipulation was part of the cattle cycle. You are getting two things mixed up again. I said it influences the cattle cycle. When prices are depressed it reduces supply. As you know supply reductions only happen over longer periods of time. It is based partly on the biological reproduction cycle of cattle. You can't just have high prices and then have more supply. Cattle ranchers have to get mother cows, bulls, and allow them to breed and then allow those heifers to grow up and have more calves etc..... It is the nature of the cattle reproductive cycle that creates the lengthy time of supply responding to price. When prices are reduced because of price manipulation as shown to the jury in the Pickett case, the supply eventually shrinks. When that supply does shrink, it causes prices to go up. Then you get people like Tam saying that the U.S. can't supply enough cattle for the U.S.

I have never said that marketing agreements are synonamous to market manipulation. It can be. It doesn't necessarily mean causuality. You can have a gun in your closet and not be a criminal. If you take the gun out and shoot someone then you might be a criminal. They are not causative. Your actions are your actions. If packers are discriminating against the price setting cash market then there is evidence of market manipulation (call it whatever you want).

Discrimination based on real quality characteristics is not what I am talking about. For instance, if the formula pricing (or captive supply) includes differences per lb. for select vs. choice, you should see those same characteristics of differences in price per lb. in the cash market. If you do not, then there could be market manipulation. You forget, for market manipulation to make a difference, the cash price has to be some kind of price setter. For the formula cattle it is. There could be other kinds of discrimination that would be illegal under the PSA. If a packer discriminated against a set of cattle that had to do with factors other than the differences in the cattle themselves, as in Mike C.'s case, then that would be unlawful. If the actions against a person like Mike C. was intended to intimidate people like Mike C. then it creates damage to the market also in addition to the actions against a person like Mike C. .

As you can see, you can not just make the kind of blanket statements that you attribute to me, especially since I didn't make them. If you need clarification of what I am talking about, just post my comments and I will give you the clarification. I don't need you or any of the other packer backers going into the childish mode of calling names as you repeatedly lower yourself and do.

I have stated before numerous times that the marketing agreements themselves are not the manipulation. They are the tools of the manipulation. You keep trying to tie those together for some reason. Probably to make up an argument in your own head that you can win. It is probably better left in your own head than for you to keep trying that tactic here. You will only confuse yourself as you continually do. If things get too complicated for you, don't start calling names or saying how dumb, ignorant, or stupid someone else is or rant and rave. It only makes you look childish and proves you do not have a logical argument to back with.

This is about the third time I have had to explain this to you. If your reading comprehension and memory are so poor, I would say that you have NO advantage in having access to the Pickett transcripts while I do not.

I have made a scandolous statement about the either incompetence at GIPSA and hence the USDA or the corruption. I stand behind it. Results matter. Every cattle producer/agriculture producer in America gets paid (except those on the govt. programs) based on the fruits of his/her labor. The same should be expected from our regulatory agencies that are facilitating the frauds being perpetrated on the American farmer (rancher) through the cozy relationship that Tyson and other large agribusiness has on our government. In the case of Mike C. , for example, (I don't know all of the particulars completely) it was said that GIPSA settled his claim without his input and without calculating total damages. If this is true, then GIPSA is just minimizing the culpability of the packing industry and shielding them from damage awards. This would be a total fraud. GIPSA officials acting in this regard should be held personally liable for these damages with an efficient means of obtaining them. May be a little jail time would not be too much to ask for in the right circumstances. (I don't really know much about this case, I am just using it as an example). May be something like that would clear up that rat's nest of inefficiency and corruption in the USDA.

As far as the particulars of your last question, those answers are for a different forum. This government has the transparency of a lead wall. We need some sunlight.

Do you still say producers have a net benefit from imports? If you do, you might get a job at GIPSA as that is the kind of thinking they seem to like if you don't already work there.

Now you are trying to divert by claiming the word "influence" to cover your behind as to price manipulation and the cattle cycle. Shucks, weather influences the cattle cycle as does feed supply, the supply of beef and the price of beef. I suppose that with your imagination and ability to use the word "manipulate" that packers also influence feed grain prices. The key word is "influence"; your own word. You are just way too easy.

If price manipulation occurred the result would be a downward shift in the demand curve as opposed to a shift down the curve absent declining demand for beef. Can you tell me which periods posted an actual downward shift in the demand curve? Why ask, I know you do not know the answer?

If marketing agreements are the tools for manipulation in this cycle what was used before marketing agreements to manipulate price to influence the cattle cycle? How many times have I asked this question and get no answer from you. I know, you don't have an answer because your premise is wrong to begin with. Me confused... I believe you are the mosquito flying over the nudist colony that can't get your facts correct to make a decision.

CLARIFICATION...You made a scandalous statement regarding closed door meetings in the Pickett case. Your statement was specific to that case. Have you trapped yourself in two self made lies or is your memory slipping that badly?

Now you are trying to divert from what appears to be your blatant lie regarding the Pickett ruling to to saying the meetings were GIPSA, the USDA and their incompetence and or corruption. Your aforementioned diversionary comment "I have made a scandalous statement about the either incompetence at GIPSA and hence the USDA or the corruption. I stand behind it." You don't have any evidence of that claim either, just your imagination running loose again; like your phone is being tapped!

I won't ask you again to provide evidence of your closed door meetings in the Pickett case. I believe your aforementioned diversion from that question has made it clear to ALL readers what a real fraud you and your associated allegations are. As always, facts will eventually win out over fraud or false allegations and knowledge will eventually defeat intelligence.

Your unwillingness and inability to provide credible support to your endless stream of allegations unfortunately eroded the E away from Econ101 leaving you to be known as Con101. Sorry Bud, but you dug your own grave and buried yourself in it. Don't blame it on another packer, GIPSA or USDA conspiracy contrived behind closed doors.

Agman, you made that diversion, not me. Is that the only way you can win an argument with me? Isn't that the "legitimate business reason" ploy? Those arguments should have been made in court for the jury to hear and decide. Arguing new arguments after the trial is over was part of the problem in the Pickett case.

I will answer your paragraphs one at a time just to show you your folley.

Now you are trying to divert by claiming the word "influence" to cover your behind as to price manipulation and the cattle cycle. Shucks, weather influences the cattle cycle as does feed supply, the supply of beef and the price of beef. I suppose that with your imagination and ability to use the word "manipulate" that packers also influence feed grain prices. The key word is "influence"; your own word. You are just way too easy.

As stated before (goes to your reading comprehension) you are the one that made the jump of saying I said that the price manipulation in Pickett causes the cattle cycle, not I. I said it increases its intensity. In fact, Tyson was already caught "manipulating" purchases on the commodities market with Hillary Clinton that netted her over $100,000.00. There is a difference between normal supply demand equilibruim points and manipulation and insider trading. That is why these prohibitions are stated in Section 202. It is also why if the time stamps had been on the Hillary trades she might prosecuted for insider trading. Knowing the elements of the proof, as Hillary and Tyson did, allowed these frauds to go unpunished. Again, lack of regulatory agencies doing their job. It has since been corrected.

If marketing agreements are the tools for manipulation in this cycle what was used before marketing agreements to manipulate price to influence the cattle cycle? How many times have I asked this question and get no answer from you. I know, you don't have an answer because your premise is wrong to begin with. Me confused... I believe you are the mosquito flying over the nudist colony that can't get your facts correct to make a decision.

The cattle cycle is a reproduction cycle. Cattle supplies do respond to price, but over the longer period of the cattle reproductive cycle (as Jason illustrated one probable scenario). Marketing agreements do not make the cattle cycle. They do make the valleys deeper and the highs higher. The U.S. producers went through the valley only to see Tyson crying for imports that hurt U.S. producers. How nice is that? You will probably stay confused, Agman. If you think you have to keep asking the same question of your own assumption that I said marketing agreements make the cattle cycle and since they were not around in other cycles, it is a wrong theory, you would be right in assuming it is wrong because your premise of me saying that is wrong. Goes back to reading comprehension. I find that most of your confusion is self induced.

CLARIFICATION...You made a scandalous statement regarding closed door meetings in the Pickett case. Your statement was specific to that case. Have you trapped yourself in two self made lies or is your memory slipping that badly?

I am sure you will agree that there were many, many closed door meetings about the Pickett case. Lawyers on both sides do it all the time. My specific reference was to the influence that the people within the USDA and the Congress had on the appellate court. For this to not be true one of two things must be true either of which you have declined to concede. Either the judges were totally wrong with their use of the RPA example on thier own or they had a little help. It is entirely possible that they were wrong on the RPA on their own but up to this point you have either not recognized that fact (which is entirely possible with your fallacious imports argument). The second possibilty is that they had a little influence outside of the court room itself. Unlike Judge Cebull's ruling, which, as you have brought up, was partly written by and presented to the court through normal court processes, the appellate decision in the Pickett case was written ostensibly by the appellate court. Thus, they are in the unenviable position of not knowing anything about economics and then dismissing an expert in the field, or influence outside the normal court proceedings. I would hate to be a "nut" in that vice.

The recent rampaging around by the USDA (and JoAnn Waterfield included) over limiting bargaining power for farmers via the Capper Volstead Act and the discussions over the RPA before the court ruling (which I have personal knowledge existed) lead me to believe the appellate court is corrupt rather than dumb. I am sure other people are working on this issue as we post although I am not at liberty to say anything about that. Go read my previous posts if you want more info. on that. Oh, I forgot, your reading comprehension limits you.

Now you are trying to divert from what appears to be your blatant lie regarding the Pickett ruling to to saying the meetings were GIPSA, the USDA and their incompetence and or corruption. Your aforementioned diversionary comment "I have made a scandalous statement about the either incompetence at GIPSA and hence the USDA or the corruption. I stand behind it." You don't have any evidence of that claim either, just your imagination running loose again; like your phone is being tapped!

You need to read Harkin's letter to Phillis Fong. I will not comment on this any more at this time. I still stand behind my statements completely in this regard. I do think it interesting the recent group of Congressmen that have come out against some provisions of the Patriot Act to prevent some of the most unpatriotic things from happening that your last sentence alludes to. Don't you? May be there are some good guys up there after all that believe in what our country stands for instead of the sell out crowd to self interest we have all seen of late. Do you "see the walls caving in?" I would start trying to play "lets make a deal" if I were you. Scanlon is just a tip of the proverbial iceberg.

I won't ask you again to provide evidence of your closed door meetings in the Pickett case. I believe your aforementioned diversion from that question has made it clear to ALL readers what a real fraud you and your associated allegations are. As always, facts will eventually win out over fraud or false allegations and knowledge will eventually defeat intelligence.

Good quote. "As always, facts will eventually win out over fraud or false allegations and knowledge will eventually defeat intelligence." That is very appropriate. Again, it is a function of time.

Your unwillingness and inability to provide credible support to your endless stream of allegations unfortunately eroded the E away from Econ101 leaving you to be known as Con101. Sorry Bud, but you dug your own grave and buried yourself in it. Don't blame it on another packer, GIPSA or USDA conspiracy contrived behind closed doors.

Can't win an argument on merits so you go back to name calling? Be careful you can't tell the difference between a rut and a grave.

Do please let me know if I have forgotten anything. It is easy to do with this cut and paste stuff, you know. I will let you wallow in your own industry trivia, however, as that is where you seem to have a little industry knowledge. I think it was Henry Ford who said when asked why he didn't know all of the intricate details of his business that others knew, "Why do I need to know all that stuff? All I have to do is make a phone call or ask my plant manager if I want to know the answer to those questions."

 

[agman]

Agman, I did not say that price manipulation was part of the cattle cycle. You are getting two things mixed up again. I said it influences the cattle cycle. When prices are depressed it reduces supply. As you know supply reductions only happen over longer periods of time. It is based partly on the biological reproduction cycle of cattle. You can't just have high prices and then have more supply. Cattle ranchers have to get mother cows, bulls, and allow them to breed and then allow those heifers to grow up and have more calves etc..... It is the nature of the cattle reproductive cycle that creates the lengthy time of supply responding to price. When prices are reduced because of price manipulation as shown to the jury in the Pickett case, the supply eventually shrinks. When that supply does shrink, it causes prices to go up. Then you get people like Tam saying that the U.S. can't supply enough cattle for the U.S.

I have never said that marketing agreements are synonamous to market manipulation. It can be. It doesn't necessarily mean causuality. You can have a gun in your closet and not be a criminal. If you take the gun out and shoot someone then you might be a criminal. They are not causative. Your actions are your actions. If packers are discriminating against the price setting cash market then there is evidence of market manipulation (call it whatever you want).

Discrimination based on real quality characteristics is not what I am talking about. For instance, if the formula pricing (or captive supply) includes differences per lb. for select vs. choice, you should see those same characteristics of differences in price per lb. in the cash market. If you do not, then there could be market manipulation. You forget, for market manipulation to make a difference, the cash price has to be some kind of price setter. For the formula cattle it is. There could be other kinds of discrimination that would be illegal under the PSA. If a packer discriminated against a set of cattle that had to do with factors other than the differences in the cattle themselves, as in Mike C.'s case, then that would be unlawful. If the actions against a person like Mike C. was intended to intimidate people like Mike C. then it creates damage to the market also in addition to the actions against a person like Mike C. .

As you can see, you can not just make the kind of blanket statements that you attribute to me, especially since I didn't make them. If you need clarification of what I am talking about, just post my comments and I will give you the clarification. I don't need you or any of the other packer backers going into the childish mode of calling names as you repeatedly lower yourself and do.

I have stated before numerous times that the marketing agreements themselves are not the manipulation. They are the tools of the manipulation. You keep trying to tie those together for some reason. Probably to make up an argument in your own head that you can win. It is probably better left in your own head than for you to keep trying that tactic here. You will only confuse yourself as you continually do. If things get too complicated for you, don't start calling names or saying how dumb, ignorant, or stupid someone else is or rant and rave. It only makes you look childish and proves you do not have a logical argument to back with.

This is about the third time I have had to explain this to you. If your reading comprehension and memory are so poor, I would say that you have NO advantage in having access to the Pickett transcripts while I do not.

I have made a scandolous statement about the either incompetence at GIPSA and hence the USDA or the corruption. I stand behind it. Results matter. Every cattle producer/agriculture producer in America gets paid (except those on the govt. programs) based on the fruits of his/her labor. The same should be expected from our regulatory agencies that are facilitating the frauds being perpetrated on the American farmer (rancher) through the cozy relationship that Tyson and other large agribusiness has on our government. In the case of Mike C. , for example, (I don't know all of the particulars completely) it was said that GIPSA settled his claim without his input and without calculating total damages. If this is true, then GIPSA is just minimizing the culpability of the packing industry and shielding them from damage awards. This would be a total fraud. GIPSA officials acting in this regard should be held personally liable for these damages with an efficient means of obtaining them. May be a little jail time would not be too much to ask for in the right circumstances. (I don't really know much about this case, I am just using it as an example). May be something like that would clear up that rat's nest of inefficiency and corruption in the USDA.

As far as the particulars of your last question, those answers are for a different forum. This government has the transparency of a lead wall. We need some sunlight.

Do you still say producers have a net benefit from imports? If you do, you might get a job at GIPSA as that is the kind of thinking they seem to like if you don't already work there.

Now you are trying to divert by claiming the word "influence" to cover your behind as to price manipulation and the cattle cycle. Shucks, weather influences the cattle cycle as does feed supply, the supply of beef and the price of beef. I suppose that with your imagination and ability to use the word "manipulate" that packers also influence feed grain prices. The key word is "influence"; your own word. You are just way too easy.

If price manipulation occurred the result would be a downward shift in the demand curve as opposed to a shift down the curve absent declining demand for beef. Can you tell me which periods posted an actual downward shift in the demand curve? Why ask, I know you do not know the answer?

If marketing agreements are the tools for manipulation in this cycle what was used before marketing agreements to manipulate price to influence the cattle cycle? How many times have I asked this question and get no answer from you. I know, you don't have an answer because your premise is wrong to begin with. Me confused... I believe you are the mosquito flying over the nudist colony that can't get your facts correct to make a decision.

CLARIFICATION...You made a scandalous statement regarding closed door meetings in the Pickett case. Your statement was specific to that case. Have you trapped yourself in two self made lies or is your memory slipping that badly?

Now you are trying to divert from what appears to be your blatant lie regarding the Pickett ruling to to saying the meetings were GIPSA, the USDA and their incompetence and or corruption. Your aforementioned diversionary comment "I have made a scandalous statement about the either incompetence at GIPSA and hence the USDA or the corruption. I stand behind it." You don't have any evidence of that claim either, just your imagination running loose again; like your phone is being tapped!

I won't ask you again to provide evidence of your closed door meetings in the Pickett case. I believe your aforementioned diversion from that question has made it clear to ALL readers what a real fraud you and your associated allegations are. As always, facts will eventually win out over fraud or false allegations and knowledge will eventually defeat intelligence.

Your unwillingness and inability to provide credible support to your endless stream of allegations unfortunately eroded the E away from Econ101 leaving you to be known as Con101. Sorry Bud, but you dug your own grave and buried yourself in it. Don't blame it on another packer, GIPSA or USDA conspiracy contrived behind closed doors.

Agman, you made that diversion, not me. Is that the only way you can win an argument with me? Isn't that the "legitimate business reason" ploy? Those arguments should have been made in court for the jury to hear and decide. Arguing new arguments after the trial is over was part of the problem in the Pickett case.

I will answer your paragraphs one at a time just to show you your folley.

Now you are trying to divert by claiming the word "influence" to cover your behind as to price manipulation and the cattle cycle. Shucks, weather influences the cattle cycle as does feed supply, the supply of beef and the price of beef. I suppose that with your imagination and ability to use the word "manipulate" that packers also influence feed grain prices. The key word is "influence"; your own word. You are just way too easy.

As stated before (goes to your reading comprehension) you are the one that made the jump of saying I said that the price manipulation in Pickett causes the cattle cycle, not I. I said it increases its intensity. In fact, Tyson was already caught "manipulating" purchases on the commodities market with Hillary Clinton that netted her over $100,000.00. There is a difference between normal supply demand equilibruim points and manipulation and insider trading. That is why these prohibitions are stated in Section 202. It is also why if the time stamps had been on the Hillary trades she might prosecuted for insider trading. Knowing the elements of the proof, as Hillary and Tyson did, allowed these frauds to go unpunished. Again, lack of regulatory agencies doing their job. It has since been corrected.

If marketing agreements are the tools for manipulation in this cycle what was used before marketing agreements to manipulate price to influence the cattle cycle? How many times have I asked this question and get no answer from you. I know, you don't have an answer because your premise is wrong to begin with. Me confused... I believe you are the mosquito flying over the nudist colony that can't get your facts correct to make a decision.

The cattle cycle is a reproduction cycle. Cattle supplies do respond to price, but over the longer period of the cattle reproductive cycle (as Jason illustrated one probable scenario). Marketing agreements do not make the cattle cycle. They do make the valleys deeper and the highs higher. The U.S. producers went through the valley only to see Tyson crying for imports that hurt U.S. producers. How nice is that? You will probably stay confused, Agman. If you think you have to keep asking the same question of your own assumption that I said marketing agreements make the cattle cycle and since they were not around in other cycles, it is a wrong theory, you would be right in assuming it is wrong because your premise of me saying that is wrong. Goes back to reading comprehension. I find that most of your confusion is self induced.

CLARIFICATION...You made a scandalous statement regarding closed door meetings in the Pickett case. Your statement was specific to that case. Have you trapped yourself in two self made lies or is your memory slipping that badly?

I am sure you will agree that there were many, many closed door meetings about the Pickett case. Lawyers on both sides do it all the time. My specific reference was to the influence that the people within the USDA and the Congress had on the appellate court. For this to not be true one of two things must be true either of which you have declined to concede. Either the judges were totally wrong with their use of the RPA example on thier own or they had a little help. It is entirely possible that they were wrong on the RPA on their own but up to this point you have either not recognized that fact (which is entirely possible with your fallacious imports argument). The second possibilty is that they had a little influence outside of the court room itself. Unlike Judge Cebull's ruling, which, as you have brought up, was partly written by and presented to the court through normal court processes, the appellate decision in the Pickett case was written ostensibly by the appellate court. Thus, they are in the unenviable position of not knowing anything about economics and then dismissing an expert in the field, or influence outside the normal court proceedings. I would hate to be a "nut" in that vice.

The recent rampaging around by the USDA (and JoAnn Waterfield included) over limiting bargaining power for farmers via the Capper Volstead Act and the discussions over the RPA before the court ruling (which I have personal knowledge existed) lead me to believe the appellate court is corrupt rather than dumb. I am sure other people are working on this issue as we post although I am not at liberty to say anything about that. Go read my previous posts if you want more info. on that. Oh, I forgot, your reading comprehension limits you.

Now you are trying to divert from what appears to be your blatant lie regarding the Pickett ruling to to saying the meetings were GIPSA, the USDA and their incompetence and or corruption. Your aforementioned diversionary comment "I have made a scandalous statement about the either incompetence at GIPSA and hence the USDA or the corruption. I stand behind it." You don't have any evidence of that claim either, just your imagination running loose again; like your phone is being tapped!

You need to read Harkin's letter to Phillis Fong. I will not comment on this any more at this time. I still stand behind my statements completely in this regard. I do think it interesting the recent group of Congressmen that have come out against some provisions of the Patriot Act to prevent some of the most unpatriotic things from happening that your last sentence alludes to. Don't you? May be there are some good guys up there after all that believe in what our country stands for instead of the sell out crowd to self interest we have all seen of late. Do you "see the walls caving in?" I would start trying to play "lets make a deal" if I were you. Scanlon is just a tip of the proverbial iceberg.

I won't ask you again to provide evidence of your closed door meetings in the Pickett case. I believe your aforementioned diversion from that question has made it clear to ALL readers what a real fraud you and your associated allegations are. As always, facts will eventually win out over fraud or false allegations and knowledge will eventually defeat intelligence.

Good quote. "As always, facts will eventually win out over fraud or false allegations and knowledge will eventually defeat intelligence." That is very appropriate. Again, it is a function of time.

Your unwillingness and inability to provide credible support to your endless stream of allegations unfortunately eroded the E away from Econ101 leaving you to be known as Con101. Sorry Bud, but you dug your own grave and buried yourself in it. Don't blame it on another packer, GIPSA or USDA conspiracy contrived behind closed doors.

Can't win an argument on merits so you go back to name calling? Be careful you can't tell the difference between a rut and a grave.

Do please let me know if I have forgotten anything. It is easy to do with this cut and paste stuff, you know. I will let you wallow in your own industry trivia, however, as that is where you seem to have a little industry knowledge. I think it was Henry Ford who said when asked why he didn't know all of the intricate details of his business that others knew, "Why do I need to know all that stuff? All I have to do is make a phone call or ask my plant manager if I want to know the answer to those questions."

I have stated facts regarding you inability to support your endless stream of allegations. You have not provided support to even one allegation. You made those allegations; don't blame your misfortune since arriving on this forum on anyone but yourself. To call you a fraud is a fact as you have made damning statements without ever presenting any credible evidence.

The other problem you have is you would not know which plant manager to call to get the correct information. All the folks you talk to are accusers such as yourself and likely know even less than you if that is possible. Your endless stream of false allegations are testimony to your almost total lack of knowledge of the beef industry and I might add business in general. Ignorance is the breeding ground for such baseless allegations. On that account you win the prize.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman 101 (to Agman): " Are you turning into SH? "Your ignorance of business is astonishing. Your opinions are derived from ignorance not fact."

BWAHAHAHAHA!

The most ignorant individual on this forum calling the most knowledgeable individual on this forum ignorant. The arrogance of Saddam. I've never seen anything like it.

Nobody has been corrected more at this site than you have Conman 101. You don't have a clue on any aspect of this industry.

What a sad state of affairs when someone as "factually void" as Conman101 tries to lead producers down the primrose path armed with nothing but "suppositions", "unsupported opinions", "theories", and "conjecture".


Let's just take one example of his complete phoniness.......

Elementary Economics: "For instance, if the formula pricing (or captive supply) includes differences per lb. for select vs. choice, you should see those same characteristics of differences in price per lb. in the cash market. If you do not, then there could be market manipulation."

"IF" the formula pricing (or captive supply) included differences per lb. for select vs. choice.............

CONMAN 101 ADMITS HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HOW FORMULA PRICING WORKS WITH HIS CHOICE OF THE WORD "IF".

Conman 101 is so damn ignorant of this industry that he actually believes that Tyson's cattle buyers can guarantee which cattle will grade select and which cattle will grade choice when they are live.

How much more proof does anyone need as to how big a phony Conman 101 is?

Conman 101: "SH, If there is so much of a problem with the cash market, why is it used as a base for the formula pricing?"

Who said there is a problem with it? The cash price is the price that is determined before the value of the carcass is realized. That's exactly why it is used as a base price for formula pricing.

Do yourself a favor and quit acting like you posess so much knowledge of this industry when you OBVIOUSLY couldn't be any more ignorant. You just happen to be too arrogant to recognize your own ignorance. Then you spend all your time trying to defend or divert your stupidity.

Conman 101: "SH, If you were to get nothing for your cattle, how many would you keep producing?"

Nobody has ever gotten nothing for healthy fat cattle.

Conman 101: "Suppose humans caught some kind of virus that makes them puke everytime they eat beef. Reality sets in and everyone knows they can never eat beef again. People stop buying cattle. You now own a zoo. How long are you going to keep letting those cows reproduce? I'll give you a hint, you will run out of money on year 2."

Ridiculous hypothetical to justify the stupidity of your statement that price determines supply.

Conman 101: "Even if on average it worked out that way (which is a plausable explanation of the cattle cycle), it is still no excuse for discrimnating for the same quality characteristics against the cash market."

QUALITY IS NOT REALIZED UNTIL THE HIDE COMES OFF YOU @^%*&!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT?????????????

THE CASH CATTLE PRICE IS ESTABLISHED BEFORE VALUE IS REALIZED BY THE USDA GRADER!

Conman 101: "If they didn't underestand what I was saying, they could have asked instead of calling names as they are prone to do."

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO ASK YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THIS INDUSTRY????

You are absolutely clueless!

 

[Econ101]

Conman 101 (to Agman): " Are you turning into SH? "Your ignorance of business is astonishing. Your opinions are derived from ignorance not fact."

BWAHAHAHAHA!

The most ignorant individual on this forum calling the most knowledgeable individual on this forum ignorant. The arrogance of Saddam. I've never seen anything like it.

Nobody has been corrected more at this site than you have Conman 101. You don't have a clue on any aspect of this industry.

What a sad state of affairs when someone as "factually void" as Conman101 tries to lead producers down the primrose path armed with nothing but "suppositions", "unsupported opinions", "theories", and "conjecture".


Let's just take one example of his complete phoniness.......

Elementary Economics: "For instance, if the formula pricing (or captive supply) includes differences per lb. for select vs. choice, you should see those same characteristics of differences in price per lb. in the cash market. If you do not, then there could be market manipulation."

"IF" the formula pricing (or captive supply) included differences per lb. for select vs. choice.............

CONMAN 101 ADMITS HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HOW FORMULA PRICING WORKS WITH HIS CHOICE OF THE WORD "IF".

Conman 101 is so damn ignorant of this industry that he actually believes that Tyson's cattle buyers can guarantee which cattle will grade select and which cattle will grade choice when they are live.

How much more proof does anyone need as to how big a phony Conman 101 is?

Conman 101: "SH, If there is so much of a problem with the cash market, why is it used as a base for the formula pricing?"

Who said there is a problem with it? The cash price is the price that is determined before the value of the carcass is realized. That's exactly why it is used as a base price for formula pricing.

Do yourself a favor and quit acting like you posess so much knowledge of this industry when you OBVIOUSLY couldn't be any more ignorant. You just happen to be too arrogant to recognize your own ignorance. Then you spend all your time trying to defend or divert your stupidity.

Conman 101: "SH, If you were to get nothing for your cattle, how many would you keep producing?"

Nobody has ever gotten nothing for healthy fat cattle.

Conman 101: "Suppose humans caught some kind of virus that makes them puke everytime they eat beef. Reality sets in and everyone knows they can never eat beef again. People stop buying cattle. You now own a zoo. How long are you going to keep letting those cows reproduce? I'll give you a hint, you will run out of money on year 2."

Ridiculous hypothetical to justify the stupidity of your statement that price determines supply.

Conman 101: "Even if on average it worked out that way (which is a plausable explanation of the cattle cycle), it is still no excuse for discrimnating for the same quality characteristics against the cash market."

QUALITY IS NOT REALIZED UNTIL THE HIDE COMES OFF YOU @^%*&!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT?????????????

THE CASH CATTLE PRICE IS ESTABLISHED BEFORE VALUE IS REALIZED BY THE USDA GRADER!

Conman 101: "If they didn't underestand what I was saying, they could have asked instead of calling names as they are prone to do."

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO ASK YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THIS INDUSTRY????

You are absolutely clueless!

Thank you for your endorsement, SH. I will keep it in my resume'. I think it is very ironic that you are the one who started this topic and the title is "Question for ..."

If you don't believe that price influences supply and that it does it over the reproductive cycle of beef which is the basis for the cattle cycle, then there is no use having you in the discussion. You still believe that imports help domestic producers and that benefits to packers are always passed down to producers. I think this has become more your religion than logical conclusions of the facts.

In this post you have misrepresented what I said and I assume that is the only way you can win an argument. Then to the name calling.

You support a price setting mechanism that on one hand you say is flawed because all the information is not in (hide still on) and in the same breath you defend its use as a price setter for the formula price.

If you can not win an argument on merits, you resort to name calling, misquoting and mischaracterization.

Have a happy Thanksgiving,SH. I think this holiday is made for you. Don't get burned in the oven.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman 101: "If you don't believe that price influences supply and that it does it over the reproductive cycle of beef which is the basis for the cattle cycle, then there is no use having you in the discussion."

This discussion centers around alleged market manipulation.

Within the context of the market manipulation discussion, supply influences price far more than price influences supply.

Yes, low cattle prices can affect cattle supplies in the LONG TERM but we are talking in the short term here. Producers don't just jump in and out of cattle production because of low markets. For cattle prices to affect supplies takes a long term down trend in the cattle cycle. This is more diverticuli from you.

Supply, influences prices on a daily basis and that is relevant within the context of "alleged" market manipulation.

Conman 101: "You still believe that imports help domestic producers and that benefits to packers are always passed down to producers."

I NEVER SAID, "IMPORTS HELP DOMESTIC PRODUCERS" you damn liar. You accuse me of taking statements out of context, WHICH I DO NOT DO, and that is exactly what you did here.

I said Australian and New Zealand imports help domestic producers by adding value to our "SURPLUS" 50/50 trim. That is not saying "ALL IMPORTS HELP DOMESTIC PRODUCERS". You are simply too ignorant of this industry to realize the value of imported lean trimmings.

Conman 101: "I think this has become more your religion than logical conclusions of the facts."

Hahaha! Listen to you. You've never taken a position based on facts since you first graced this forum with your overwhelming ignorance. You wouldn't know what facts are.

Conman: "In this post you have misrepresented what I said and I assume that is the only way you can win an argument."

PROVE IT!

It's pretty hard to misrepresent what you have said when I respond to your actual quotes. You just don't like it when someonen points out how ignorant you are of this industry.

Conman 101: "You support a price setting mechanism that on one hand you say is flawed because all the information is not in (hide still on) and in the same breath you defend its use as a price setter for the formula price."

I never said the cash market was flawed. Another of your many lies.

There is nothing wrong with the cash market setting the base price for the formula market then adding and subtracting premiums and discounts based on carcass quality. That system has worked fine for years until market manipulation conspiracy theorists such as yourself came along to try to save the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms.

The cash market has been the staple for buying and selling all classes of cattle so there is nothing wrong with the cash market setting the base price for grid marketing.

Conman 101: "If you can not win an argument on merits, you resort to name calling, misquoting and mischaracterization."

I lost track of how many times I have corrected you for false information. Pretty hard to misquote or mischaracterize you when responding to your actual quotes. This is just more of your typical MO of trying to spin out of your ignorance of this industry. You're pathetic!



~SH~

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

You know Econ makes a pretty good arguement for all cattle to be sold on the grid cause you don't know the value of your cattle to sell them live. Wonder how many would sign a contrct with no bottom price?

 

[Anonymous]

BMR,

We could have a base price and then get paid premiums and discounts on their feedlot performance. The feeder could then turn around and sell them based on their carcass merits.

Value based marketing, what a concept.

Then watch those with inferior cattle start whining about "market manipulation" if the feedlot performance grid price was better than the cash feeder cattle market. Hahaha!

What tangled webs we weave.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman 101: "If you don't believe that price influences supply and that it does it over the reproductive cycle of beef which is the basis for the cattle cycle, then there is no use having you in the discussion."

This discussion centers around alleged market manipulation.

Within the context of the market manipulation discussion, supply influences price far more than price influences supply.

Yes, low cattle prices can affect cattle supplies in the LONG TERM but we are talking in the short term here. Producers don't just jump in and out of cattle production because of low markets. For cattle prices to affect supplies takes a long term down trend in the cattle cycle. This is more diverticuli from you.

Supply, influences prices on a daily basis and that is relevant within the context of "alleged" market manipulation.

Conman 101: "You still believe that imports help domestic producers and that benefits to packers are always passed down to producers."

I NEVER SAID, "IMPORTS HELP DOMESTIC PRODUCERS" you damn liar. You accuse me of taking statements out of context, WHICH I DO NOT DO, and that is exactly what you did here.

I said Australian and New Zealand imports help domestic producers by adding value to our "SURPLUS" 50/50 trim. That is not saying "ALL IMPORTS HELP DOMESTIC PRODUCERS". You are simply too ignorant of this industry to realize the value of imported lean trimmings.

Conman 101: "I think this has become more your religion than logical conclusions of the facts."

Hahaha! Listen to you. You've never taken a position based on facts since you first graced this forum with your overwhelming ignorance. You wouldn't know what facts are.

Conman: "In this post you have misrepresented what I said and I assume that is the only way you can win an argument."

PROVE IT!

It's pretty hard to misrepresent what you have said when I respond to your actual quotes. You just don't like it when someonen points out how ignorant you are of this industry.

Conman 101: "You support a price setting mechanism that on one hand you say is flawed because all the information is not in (hide still on) and in the same breath you defend its use as a price setter for the formula price."

I never said the cash market was flawed. Another of your many lies.

There is nothing wrong with the cash market setting the base price for the formula market then adding and subtracting premiums and discounts based on carcass quality. That system has worked fine for years until market manipulation conspiracy theorists such as yourself came along to try to save the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms.

The cash market has been the staple for buying and selling all classes of cattle so there is nothing wrong with the cash market setting the base price for grid marketing.

Conman 101: "If you can not win an argument on merits, you resort to name calling, misquoting and mischaracterization."

I lost track of how many times I have corrected you for false information. Pretty hard to misquote or mischaracterize you when responding to your actual quotes. This is just more of your typical MO of trying to spin out of your ignorance of this industry. You're pathetic!



~SH~

BMR, The whole hide off thing is just a diversion. Cattle buyers are usually a lot better than SH gives them credit. There are other mechanisms that can adjust for these inefficiencies of cattle buyers althogh to me, they show lack of experience in cattle buying/judgeing on the hoof. That should be the packer's problem, not pawned off on the cattleman.

SH, the Pickett case looked at a 7 year period, I believe. It was not short term compared to the cycle. The length of the cattle reproductive cycle (and hence changes in supply) compared to consumption (call it demand) is what gives the power to lower prices via differences in the price settting mechanisms (cash price) and the captive supply.

I never said the cash market was flawed. Another of your many lies

SH, if cattle buyers can not tell the difference in the quality/yield of the beef carcass until it comes off, then is it not flawed as a base for formula or other captive supply prices that include some kind of premium/disounts? You can not argue the two at the same time, although I know you will try.

You better stop saying I lied.

You lied about Mike C. being a perjuror. You did lie about that and everyone knows it. Do you have a different definition of perjury than the legal one? While I have the decency of saying that mischaracterize what I say, you call me a liar and sometimes worse. See next quote.

I NEVER SAID, "IMPORTS HELP DOMESTIC PRODUCERS" you damn liar. You accuse me of taking statements out of context, WHICH I DO NOT DO, and that is exactly what you did here.

I said Australian and New Zealand imports help domestic producers by adding value to our "SURPLUS" 50/50 trim. That is not saying "ALL IMPORTS HELP DOMESTIC PRODUCERS". You are simply too ignorant of this industry to realize the value of imported lean trimmings.

If the surplus trim is the producer's trim, then I will concede to your point. Who owns the trim, SH? Who owns the trim? If everytime the packers get a benefit you can call it a benefit to producers, then why didn't the Canadian producers get their share of the "Salmon run" from the packers? Margins for Canadian packers that boxed beef for U.S. markets increased. Why didn't the producers get some of that margin increase? Why don't producers get dividends from packers? Why don't they have a seat on the board of directors? The fact is that packers are importing meat to be mixed with a by-product to compete with the real thing. I am glad you finally backed off of your silly argument on imports, now you can go correct Agman. You have so many holes in your arguments it lends credibility that you use this as your religion. You are the holy man of the packer.

It is this tactic of confusing who REALLY gets the benefit that fools most people when looking at these discussions. You and Agman are guilty of making these false arguments. You don't have to call me names when I point it out to you in your frustration.

Imports in your scenario help packers who import . They do not help all packers out. Most of the time this excludes the smaller packing plants and gives benefit to larger packers that are willing to sell out their own producers for foreign ones. It helps in giving Tyson and Cargill advantages over smaller packers like Big C or any of the ones who do not paricipate in this selling out. While economists may call this efficiency, I call it plain old selling out. Tyson undoubtedly got this technique from Walmart as it is one that is suited for middlemen, which both of them are.

Your arguments on the 50/50 trim and imports is for the dogs and is a sell out to domestic producers.

There is nothing wrong with the cash market setting the base price for the formula market then adding and subtracting premiums and discounts based on carcass quality. That system has worked fine for years until market manipulation conspiracy theorists such as yourself came along to try to save the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms.

The cash market has been the staple for buying and selling all classes of cattle so there is nothing wrong with the cash market setting the base price for grid marketing.

There is something wrong with the cash market setting the base price if it is being discriminated against. I am sorry you can not see that.

Due to the "over ripeness" of cattle and the fact that they tend to get fatter the longer you feed them, any buying discrimination against the cash market actually makes the cash market more valuable in cents per lb. This is always the case when choice is paid a premium over select (good). You can argue yield differences influence the price per lb. but that argument can easily be shown to be false with accurate records of the actual slaughter (verified, of course, and not just by the USDA) of formula pricing and what is offered in the cash market. So any discrimination of next week's market is actually accentuated when the cash price is used as a base for pricing based on premiums/discounts.

This problem of offers for the sale or use of property was seen long ago in another market, the real estate market. All offers and leases of real property have to be in writing to be legally binding. May be this would not be a bad thing for the cattle industry. It would sure leave a paper trail which is exactly the purpose in the real estate industry. Don't want more regualtions?---Stop market manipulation and fraud which ellicits them.

If you want, SH, I will show you where you LIED about mischaracterizing the thoughts of my posting. I would, however, like you to lay something of value on the table. Your credibity just isn't worth a whole lot to me anymore. Say, $100.00? Maybe a calf donated to BIG C?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "BMR, The whole hide off thing is just a diversion. Cattle buyers are usually a lot better than SH gives them credit. There are other mechanisms that can adjust for these inefficiencies of cattle buyers althogh to me, they show lack of experience in cattle buying/judgeing on the hoof. That should be the packer's problem, not pawned off on the cattleman."

Packers would not have been supportive of grid pricing if their buyers could predict quality grade, yield grade, back fat, and dressing percentage by looking at the live animal.

Conman: "SH, the Pickett case looked at a 7 year period, I believe. It was not short term compared to the cycle. The length of the cattle reproductive cycle (and hence changes in supply) compared to consumption (call it demand) is what gives the power to lower prices via differences in the price settting mechanisms (cash price) and the captive supply."

In light of your market manipulation conspiracy theories, you cannot explain why there was times during this period when cash cattle prices were higher than the price of the formula cattle totally shattering your captive supply market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Conman: "SH, if cattle buyers can not tell the difference in the quality/yield of the beef carcass until it comes off, then is it not flawed as a base for formula or other captive supply prices that include some kind of premium/disounts?'

No, because the premiums and discounts for quality are added above and beyond that base price.

As hard as it is for you to take, the feeding industry does not need you or anyone else to save them from their pricing mechanisms.

Conman: "You better stop saying I lied."

When you stop lying, I will stop calling you a liar. I have never called you a liar where I didn't present the truth in response to your lie.

Conman: "You lied about Mike C. being a perjuror. You did lie about that and everyone knows it. Do you have a different definition of perjury than the legal one? While I have the decency of saying that mischaracterize what I say, you call me a liar and sometimes worse."

Perjury is defined as lying under oath. Mike Callicrate lied under oath in Pickett and that is a fact. Judge Strom advised the jurors to disregard all or parts of his testimony that he found to be untrue. I have already posted Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors regarding Mike's testimony.

Mike says what you want to hear and Mike, like you, makes things up as he goes so it's only natural that you would run to his defense.

Just because Mike was not charged with perjury does not mean he did not lie under oath.

Conman: "If the surplus trim is the producer's trim, then I will concede to your point. Who owns the trim, SH? Who owns the trim?"

Who owns the trim? The packers own the trim. Do you think that makes your stupid point that the packers don't pay producers based on the value of the beef from a carcass?

Conman: "If everytime the packers get a benefit you can call it a benefit to producers, then why didn't the Canadian producers get their share of the "Salmon run" from the packers?"

Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity when the border closed which eliminated the U.S. competition for those cattle. You are not stupid enough to try to draw that comparison with the U.S. are you?

Conman: "Margins for Canadian packers that boxed beef for U.S. markets increased. Why didn't the producers get some of that margin increase?"

Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity when the border closed which eliminated the U.S. competition for those cattle. You are not stupid enough to try to draw that comparison with the U.S. are you?

Besides, how do you know what percentage of their margin they paid to producers? Packer blaming Randy Kaiser said what you wanted to hear so you assume he's right.

You revealed your extreme bias again even using his "Salmon run" analogy. Real independent thinking there Conman!

Conman: "The fact is that packers are importing meat to be mixed with a by-product to compete with the real thing."

The fact is that 70/30 ground beef has a consumer base just as leaner 90/10 does. If you weren't so ignorant you'd realize that.

Conman: "You have so many holes in your arguments it lends credibility that you use this as your religion. You are the holy man of the packer."

Talk is no cheaper than it is from you. You have yet to correct me on a single issue yet with facts to the contrary. You are simply too ignorant and too arrogant to realize your own ignorance.

Conman: "Imports in your scenario help packers who import . They do not help all packers out. Most of the time this excludes the smaller packing plants and gives benefit to larger packers that are willing to sell out their own producers for foreign ones. It helps in giving Tyson and Cargill advantages over smaller packers like Big C or any of the ones who do not paricipate in this selling out. While economists may call this efficiency, I call it plain old selling out. Tyson undoubtedly got this technique from Walmart as it is one that is suited for middlemen, which both of them are."

You did it again! You assume that only the large packers import lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand and you couldn't be more wrong. There is many small packing companies that specialize in ground beef. Once again, you reveal your total ignorance of this industry yet you flounder on as if it never happened which is testimony to your extreme level of arrogance.

I challenge you to prove me wrong on this.

Observe readers........

Conman: "Your arguments on the 50/50 trim and imports is for the dogs and is a sell out to domestic producers."

Keep telling yourself that Conman. You are simply too ignorant of this industry to realize how imported lean trimmings add value to a product that is basically worthless without being blended with lean trimmings.

Yet another chapter in your book of baseless conspiracy theories.

Conman: "There is something wrong with the cash market setting the base price if it is being discriminated against. I am sorry you can not see that."

Translation: "THE FEEDING INDUSTRY NEEDS ME, CONMAN, TO SAVE THEM FROM THEIR OWN PRICING MECHANISMS"

Conman: " Due to the "over ripeness" of cattle and the fact that they tend to get fatter the longer you feed them, any buying discrimination against the cash market actually makes the cash market more valuable in cents per lb. This is always the case when choice is paid a premium over select (good). You can argue yield differences influence the price per lb. but that argument can easily be shown to be false with accurate records of the actual slaughter (verified, of course, and not just by the USDA) of formula pricing and what is offered in the cash market. So any discrimination of next week's market is actually accentuated when the cash price is used as a base for pricing based on premiums/discounts."

You are such a lost cause.

Overfed cattle result in more seam fat which is basically worthless beyond what little tallow is needed for ground beef. As the fed cattle market over ripens, the choice select spread narrows. If you weren't so damn ignorant of this industry you would know that. As cattle are overfed, their cost of gain increases removing profitability from the feeding sector from that standpoint as well.

Overfeeding cattle costs feeders in three areas:

1. A narrowing of the choice/select spread.
2. Excessive fat
3. Raising cost of gains in the feedyard.

Go ahead Einstein, try to contradict any one of these facts. The value of more choice cattle means little if the choice/select spread narrows to nothing.

Conman: "If you want, SH, I will show you where you LIED about mischaracterizing the thoughts of my posting. I would, however, like you to lay something of value on the table. Your credibity just isn't worth a whole lot to me anymore. Say, $100.00? Maybe a calf donated to BIG C?"

Of course, create an illusion again. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz!

I would expect nothing less from a Conman like you. You're absolutely pathetic.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Oh, SH, you are a lost cause, but you are so much fun. For old readers, this is a long and senseless post to answer dear old SH. You might want to skip it.

On the perjury charge, am I to believe that you and Judge Strom make a conviction? The world as we know it by SH. You did lie about Mike C. being a perjurer. You might have that OPINION, but we all know your "burden of proof" is just what you make up in your own head while going around your merry-go-round. In case you were washing a bus during civics class, it takes an admission of guilt or a conviction by 12 jurors. Picket got one of those. You did not.

As hard as it is for you to take, the feeding industry does not need you or anyone else to save them from their pricing mechanisms.

I guess the packers need you to save them from the truth, don't they?

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:19 am Post subject:
Quote:
Conman: "BMR, The whole hide off thing is just a diversion. Cattle buyers are usually a lot better than SH gives them credit. There are other mechanisms that can adjust for these inefficiencies of cattle buyers althogh to me, they show lack of experience in cattle buying/judgeing on the hoof. That should be the packer's problem, not pawned off on the cattleman."


Packers would not have been supportive of grid pricing if their buyers could predict quality grade, yield grade, back fat, and dressing percentage by looking at the live animal.


Quote:
Conman: "SH, the Pickett case looked at a 7 year period, I believe. It was not short term compared to the cycle. The length of the cattle reproductive cycle (and hence changes in supply) compared to consumption (call it demand) is what gives the power to lower prices via differences in the price settting mechanisms (cash price) and the captive supply."


In light of your market manipulation conspiracy theories, you cannot explain why there was times during this period when cash cattle prices were higher than the price of the formula cattle totally shattering your captive supply market manipulation conspiracy theory.


Quote:
Conman: "SH, if cattle buyers can not tell the difference in the quality/yield of the beef carcass until it comes off, then is it not flawed as a base for formula or other captive supply prices that include some kind of premium/disounts?'


No, because the premiums and discounts for quality are added above and beyond that base price.

If the base price is the cash market and the cash market was discriminated against then the base price is based off of a discriminated price. Is that too hard for you to understand? That means it would be lower than the market. Don't bring up your different weeks defense as it has already been shown to be a false argument. Are discounts added beyond that base price?

As hard as it is for you to take, the feeding industry does not need you or anyone else to save them from their pricing mechanisms.

It is obvious that Tyson needed some judicial intervention and they got it. Do you believe in judicial activism or is it only when your packer interests are at stake?

Who owns the trim? The packers own the trim. Do you think that makes your stupid point that the packers don't pay producers based on the value of the beef from a carcass?

Who gets the benefit from importing meat to be mixed with the trim, SH?

Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity when the border closed which eliminated the U.S. competition for those cattle. You are not stupid enough to try to draw that comparison with the U.S. are you?

So now are you willing to concede the point that cattle prices are about supply and demand and not your stupid idea of packer margins? Manipulation of that supply as Pickett showed, discriminates against the cattle producers and brings them less money.

Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity when the border closed which eliminated the U.S. competition for those cattle. You are not stupid enough to try to draw that comparison with the U.S. are you?

Besides, how do you know what percentage of their margin they paid to producers? Packer blaming Randy Kaiser said what you wanted to hear so you assume he's right.

You revealed your extreme bias again even using his "Salmon run" analogy. Real independent thinking there Conman!

I haven't made a donation to R-Calf yet. It seems that based on this issue, you have. Need I say more?

The fact is that 70/30 ground beef has a consumer base just as leaner 90/10 does. If you weren't so ignorant you'd realize that

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? (One of my dad's sayings) What makes you think I don't already know that? Are you making up stuff again so you can win an argument?

Quote:
Conman: "You have so many holes in your arguments it lends credibility that you use this as your religion. You are the holy man of the packer."


Talk is no cheaper than it is from you. You have yet to correct me on a single issue yet with facts to the contrary. You are simply too ignorant and too arrogant to realize your own ignorance.

Seems you make up things and then call people names. What a fantasy world you live in, SH.

Quote:
Conman: "Imports in your scenario help packers who import . They do not help all packers out. Most of the time this excludes the smaller packing plants and gives benefit to larger packers that are willing to sell out their own producers for foreign ones. It helps in giving Tyson and Cargill advantages over smaller packers like Big C or any of the ones who do not paricipate in this selling out. While economists may call this efficiency, I call it plain old selling out. Tyson undoubtedly got this technique from Walmart as it is one that is suited for middlemen, which both of them are."


You did it again! You assume that only the large packers import lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand and you couldn't be more wrong. There is many small packing companies that specialize in ground beef. Once again, you reveal your total ignorance of this industry yet you flounder on as if it never happened which is testimony to your extreme level of arrogance.

I challenge you to prove me wrong on this.

I did not assume that only the large packers import. I did say that those who import are the ones gaining at the expense of the domestic producers. Do you know what "most of the time" means, SH? Again, you have to make up stuff to win ANY argument. You are just like Tyson's legal team in that regard, SH.

Quote:
Conman: "There is something wrong with the cash market setting the base price if it is being discriminated against. I am sorry you can not see that."


Translation: "THE FEEDING INDUSTRY NEEDS ME, CONMAN, TO SAVE THEM FROM THEIR OWN PRICING MECHANISMS"

I have already told you, SH, you don't have the qualifications to translate for me. Why do you keep attempting? You are just plain not smart enough.

Quote:
Conman: " Due to the "over ripeness" of cattle and the fact that they tend to get fatter the longer you feed them, any buying discrimination against the cash market actually makes the cash market more valuable in cents per lb. This is always the case when choice is paid a premium over select (good). You can argue yield differences influence the price per lb. but that argument can easily be shown to be false with accurate records of the actual slaughter (verified, of course, and not just by the USDA) of formula pricing and what is offered in the cash market. So any discrimination of next week's market is actually accentuated when the cash price is used as a base for pricing based on premiums/discounts."


You are such a lost cause.

Overfed cattle result in more seam fat which is basically worthless beyond what little tallow is needed for ground beef. As the fed cattle market over ripens, the choice select spread narrows. If you weren't so damn ignorant of this industry you would know that. As cattle are overfed, their cost of gain increases removing profitability from the feeding sector from that standpoint as well.

Overfeeding cattle costs feeders in three areas:

1. A narrowing of the choice/select spread.
2. Excessive fat
3. Raising cost of gains in the feedyard.

Go ahead Einstein, try to contradict any one of these facts. The value of more choice cattle means little if the choice/select spread narrows to nothing.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If you can not win an argument on merits, you try to change the argument. My statement did stands whether or not your 3 points are correct. Your 3 points and challenge are examples of your lack of understanding of the cattle manipulation case Pickett brought and your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Quote:
Conman: "If you want, SH, I will show you where you LIED about mischaracterizing the thoughts of my posting. I would, however, like you to lay something of value on the table. Your credibity just isn't worth a whole lot to me anymore. Say, $100.00? Maybe a calf donated to BIG C?"


Of course, create an illusion again. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz!

I would expect nothing less from a Conman like you. You're absolutely pathetic.


~SH~

So now you are too scared to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "On the perjury charge, am I to believe that you and Judge Strom make a conviction? The world as we know it by SH. You did lie about Mike C. being a perjurer. You might have that OPINION, but we all know your "burden of proof" is just what you make up in your own head while going around your merry-go-round."

I understand your desperation to attempt to save the credibility of Mike Callicrate but he lied under oath in Pickett which is perjury by definition. Not my definition, by the dictionary's definition. Just because he was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he did not lie under oath. In his instructions to the jurors, Judge Strom advised the jurors to disregard all or parts of Mike's testimony because he found it to be untrue. I know that doesn't sit well with a packer blamer like you but you can't change what has been written in court and you can't change the fact that Mike tried to change his story to cover his butt.

Conman: "I guess the packers need you to save them from the truth, don't they?"

Another empty unsupported statement! Same-O, Same-O!

Conman: " If the base price is the cash market and the cash market was discriminated against then the base price is based off of a discriminated price. Is that too hard for you to understand? That means it would be lower than the market."

Then how do you explain the fact that there is times when the cash market is higher than the formula market?

You can't explain it because you are too ignorant to understand anything about cattle pricing.

Conman: "Are discounts added beyond that base price?"

Discounts are subtracted from the base price you fool.

Conman: "It is obvious that Tyson needed some judicial intervention and they got it. Do you believe in judicial activism or is it only when your packer interests are at stake?"

I believe in the presumption of innocense. If you don't have any proof to support your allegations, you should have to pay all court costs for wasting the courts time.

Conman: "Who gets the benefit from importing meat to be mixed with the trim, SH?'

1. The packer
2. The producer because it raises the value of his 50/50 trim.
3. The retailer because he has more 70/30 ground beef to sell.
4. The consumer because there is more 70/30 ground beef available.

Did you think the answer would change by asking the question again?

Conman: "So now are you willing to concede the point that cattle prices are about supply and demand and not your stupid idea of packer margins?"

I'm not conceding to any of the stupid arguments you make. The Canadian situation of suddenly finding themselves with more cattle than slaughter capacity was brought on by BSE. The U.S. never had more cattle than slaughter capacity giving packers leverage. In contrast, the closing of the Canadian border created a situation in the U.S. of more slaughter capacity than available cattle.

If you don't think packer margins are an issue, THEN WHY DID PLANTS CUT BACK SHIFTS? Why didn't they continue to lose money? You're simply too ignorant to figure it out.

Cattle prices have always been driven by supply and demand and packer margins are part of that demand. Live cattle prices in the United States follow boxed beef prices. Packer margins for the largest packers run mostly in the range of $10 per head losses to $15 per head profits.

Conman: "Manipulation of that supply as Pickett showed, discriminates against the cattle producers and brings them less money."

Oh, now packers are manipulating the SUPPLY too? Hahaha!

How can packers manipulate the supply and what would that have to do with Pickett? Pickett's contention was that packers manipulated PRICE, not supply. What else are you going to make up.

I suppose in your conspiring mind the packers planted BSE and they just pretended to lose money in their financial reports during that time? Has anyone introduced you to Randy Kaiser? He has the same twisted beliefs.

Pickett never showed a manipulation of supply. They couldn't even prove manipulation of price, let alone SUPPLY.

You continue to display your complete ignorance to the world.

Conman: "I haven't made a donation to R-Calf yet. It seems that based on this issue, you have. Need I say more?"

The original statement I made, that Sandbag called a lie, was that Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost more money than Tyson's Lakeside plant in Canada made WHILE THE BORDER WAS CLOSED.

The bet was for calendar year 2004. I was wrong about calendar year 2004 but my original statement was correct.

You will not prove otherwise but your continuous reference to the bet shows your desperation.

How ironic that you packer blamers accuse me of lying then accept my admission to being wrong about calendar year 2004 without reservations. I guess I'm only right when it supports your bias huh?

Need I say more about your inability to back your positions with supporting facts?

How truly pathetic when you have to rely on the person you are betting to prove themselves wrong on CALENDAR YEAR 2004 ONLY!

Conman: "What makes you think I don't already know that? Are you making up stuff again so you can win an argument?"

If you already knew that, how could I be making it up?

You're too easy. Go play in your sandbox with Sandman.

Conman: "Seems you make up things and then call people names."

Seems you accuse people of making things up but never have the proof to back that allegation. You're nothing but a cheap talker!

Conman: "I did not assume that only the large packers import. I did say that those who import are the ones gaining at the expense of the domestic producers. Do you know what "most of the time" means, SH? Again, you have to make up stuff to win ANY argument."

Here's exactly what you stated:

Conman (previous): "Most of the time this excludes the smaller packing plants and gives benefit to larger packers that are willing to sell out their own producers for foreign ones."

You are the one making stuff up. You said "MOST OF THE TIME" this excludes the small packers". That is wrong. You made that up and then accuse me of making things up you pathetic !@%^*@!%!

The truth is many small packers specialize in ground beef. They are not excluded AT ANY TIME. You are simply too ignorant of this industry to realize that and you prove it with every post you make.

Conman: "If you can not win an argument on merits, you try to change the argument. My statement did stands whether or not your 3 points are correct."

Whenever your ignorance is revealed in the stupidity of your statements, you always accuse me of changing the argument. Anyone can read what you wrote Conman. The only ones who would buy your discrediting diversion is a mindless packer blamer that can't think for themselves.

Conman: "Your 3 points and challenge are examples of your lack of understanding of the cattle manipulation case Pickett brought and your lack of reading comprehension skills."

Hahaha! SURE!

Let's review exactly what you wrote again:

Conman: " Due to the "over ripeness" of cattle and the fact that they tend to get fatter the longer you feed them, any buying discrimination against the cash market actually makes the cash market more valuable in cents per lb. This is always the case when choice is paid a premium over select (good)."

Talk about making stuff up!

First, if buying discrimination against the cash market makes the cash market more valuable, how can it be discrimination? That doesn't even make sense.

Secondly, if in your inability to make your point, you are suggesting that buying discrimination against the cash market means feeders refuse to sell which puts more pounds on their cattle ("overripeness") and increases their value due to having more choice cattle, you are wrong again.

My three points address this and you cannot refute any of them because they are facts.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Quote:
Conman: "On the perjury charge, am I to believe that you and Judge Strom make a conviction? The world as we know it by SH. You did lie about Mike C. being a perjurer. You might have that OPINION, but we all know your "burden of proof" is just what you make up in your own head while going around your merry-go-round."


I understand your desperation to attempt to save the credibility of Mike Callicrate but he lied under oath in Pickett which is perjury by definition. Not my definition, by the dictionary's definition. Just because he was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he did not lie under oath. In his instructions to the jurors, Judge Strom advised the jurors to disregard all or parts of Mike's testimony because he found it to be untrue. I know that doesn't sit well with a packer blamer like you but you can't change what has been written in court and you can't change the fact that Mike tried to change his story to cover his butt.

No, SH, this just shows everyone that you have two standards of proof. One for the packers where you have to have a conviction that has to not only go through 12 jurors but also a few appellate judges who, by their own appellate briefs, do not understand the issues, and on the other hand, you convict someone (could be anyone) that does not agree with you without even a trial. This just shows how biased you are.

Just because Tyson was able to wiggle out of a jury verdict by getting the courts to make up stuff and ignore the law as written, does not mean that they are not guilty of price manipulation. I do understand your desperate attempt to argue for the packers and everyone else does too.

I believe in the presumption of innocense. If you don't have any proof to support your allegations, you should have to pay all court costs for wasting the courts time

Since we are talking about legal behind closed door tampering with the justice system here, Did you know about MRJ's alias and was it used for voting purposes on the poll? You still never answered my question on making up new log ins. Do you do it or know anyone who has (including MRJ)?

I will answer your other silly part of your post after you answer these questions. I see you are too scared to put your money where your mouth is. It doesn't surprise me.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Just because Tyson was able to wiggle out of a jury verdict by getting the courts to make up stuff and ignore the law as written, does not mean that they are not guilty of price manipulation. I do understand your desperate attempt to argue for the packers and everyone else does too."

What did the courts make up Conman?

Conman: " I do understand your desperate attempt to argue for the packers and everyone else does too."

Why don't you explain that statement! If you want to create a bias, let's hear it. I'm sick of your pathetic "ILLUSIONIST" games. Either bring it to the table or prove that you are creating an "illusion" again.

Conman: "Since we are talking about legal behind closed door tampering with the justice system here, Did you know about MRJ's alias and was it used for voting purposes on the poll?"

First, you have offered no proof of this "supposed behind door tampering". That's just more Conman bullsh*t supported by nothing more than your conspiring mind.

Secondly, MRJ was using someone else's computer and made no bones about it by using her initials to sign off. Everyone else understood it but your conspiring mind runs in overdrive, AS USUAL.

Conman: "You still never answered my question on making up new log ins. Do you do it or know anyone who has (including MRJ)?"

More "illusionist" bullsh*t from the biggest phony on this site.

I already answered this question. No, I do not do it and I have no reason to. I have disclosed my full name and address. I have nothing to hide and could care less about your dumb assed polls. Haymaker used to post behind multiple aliases on the old forum which is part of the reason we now have a new forum with registration. Registration was not required under the old forum so we had all kinds of trolls.

MRJ did not us another alias, she posted while using someone else's computer AND POSTED HER OWN INITIALS to leave no doubt.

Being the conspiring idiot that you are, you didn't catch the obvious.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Turning and's into or's. Didn't I post that before? There is a thing called producer surplus, SH.

 

[mrj]

SH:

Quote:
Conman: "On the perjury charge, am I to believe that you and Judge Strom make a conviction? The world as we know it by SH. You did lie about Mike C. being a perjurer. You might have that OPINION, but we all know your "burden of proof" is just what you make up in your own head while going around your merry-go-round."


I understand your desperation to attempt to save the credibility of Mike Callicrate but he lied under oath in Pickett which is perjury by definition. Not my definition, by the dictionary's definition. Just because he was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he did not lie under oath. In his instructions to the jurors, Judge Strom advised the jurors to disregard all or parts of Mike's testimony because he found it to be untrue. I know that doesn't sit well with a packer blamer like you but you can't change what has been written in court and you can't change the fact that Mike tried to change his story to cover his butt.

No, SH, this just shows everyone that you have two standards of proof. One for the packers where you have to have a conviction that has to not only go through 12 jurors but also a few appellate judges who, by their own appellate briefs, do not understand the issues, and on the other hand, you convict someone (could be anyone) that does not agree with you without even a trial. This just shows how biased you are.

Just because Tyson was able to wiggle out of a jury verdict by getting the courts to make up stuff and ignore the law as written, does not mean that they are not guilty of price manipulation. I do understand your desperate attempt to argue for the packers and everyone else does too.

I believe in the presumption of innocense. If you don't have any proof to support your allegations, you should have to pay all court costs for wasting the courts time

Since we are talking about legal behind closed door tampering with the justice system here, Did you know about MRJ's alias and was it used for voting purposes on the poll? You still never answered my question on making up new log ins. Do you do it or know anyone who has (including MRJ)?

I will answer your other silly part of your post after you answer these questions. I see you are too scared to put your money where your mouth is. It doesn't surprise me.

Econ, you squeal like a stuck hog when anyone calls you any semblance of a "name", yet you do not hesitate to imply that I was using an alias for deceptive purposes. You do not hesitate to call others names by implication, if not outright.

You make outrageous, unproven charges against Tyson in a paragraph above, then in the next one, attempt to paint yourself as generously believing in "the presumption of innocense".


You offer innuendo and hints of "tapped phone lines", "behind closed doors deals" and more as "proof" of the evils of "corporate greed"....with no supporting facts.

You repeatedly make nasty charges about FORMER employees of NCBA with no basis in fact presented......and more!

I will give you a very gentle name to describe someone who does what you have done. You are attempting to be a manipulative jerk.......at best! And I say "attempting to be" because it is doubtful anyone with an iota of common sense or honesty would believe you!

For the record, when I realized the borrowed computer I was using identified my with another name, even though I consistently had used my initials to end my posts, I stated clearly that I was using a borrowed computer with a different "name" under the author line. I don't recall if I voted in any "poll" on that computer or not. I don't vote on all of them because too many are just ridiculous attempts to slam or smear someone or their ideas. That is more your style than mine!

MRJ